Commenter Jen reminds us that miserliness isn’t the only option for a wife:
Honestly, if a woman loves her husband, even if she’s NOT in the mood, she’ll be more than happy to acquiesce simply out of her love for and desire to please him & make him happy (which ought to, by default, make her even happier she said yes). And this is not “duty sex” or “Oh, FINE” sex, but “All right, Sweetheart!” and happily off the couple goes. IMO there is no room for the “duty” or grudging sex in marriage, because the woman is only “giving” grudgingly, and that is not giving at all, and may be just as cruel as denying. I wouldn’t like it if my husband acted that way. (God loves a cheerful giver! Perhaps that ought to be embroidered onto bedsheets…)
Many have grown so accustomed to the miserly perspective of feminism, where even love for family is subject to a penny pinching curmudgeonly attitude, that they forget that it doesn’t have to be this way. Feminism is ugly because it teaches women to be misers with love, and frigidity is all about being miserly with love. This feminist obsession with miserliness has caused large numbers of women to scorn what is beautiful to God; what could be uglier than that?
There is a tendency in the sphere to make everything about Game/attraction, as if women can’t be loving unless their genitals are leading them that way. This is the opposite extreme of Dr. Mohler seeing a woman’s clitoris as a divining rod for good men, and equally as foolish. It isn’t that attraction and romantic love don’t matter; they are very important. But they aren’t the only thing. We do miserly women a disservice if we claim the only way they can overcome their ugly attitude is for their husbands to lead them via their genitals. We also do good and loving women a disservice by assuming they are only good and loving because they are following their genitals.